DIRECTOR v NOVO NORDISK
|
|
- Lewis Richardson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CASE AUTH/2269/9/09 DIRECTOR v NOVO NORDISK Breach of undertaking The Constitution and Procedure was such that when the Director received information from which it appeared that a company might have contravened the Code the company concerned was requested to provide a complete response to the matters of complaint. From the information received it appeared that Novo Nordisk had continued to use a supplement to The Times contrary to its undertaking given in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. The matter was taken up by the Director as it was the responsibility of the Authority itself to ensure compliance with undertakings. The matter had come to light as part of preparation for the consideration of the report in Case AUTH/2234/5/09 by the Code of Practice Appeal Board. It was raised with the Director by an independent member of the Appeal Board but played no part whatsoever in the Appeal Board s consideration of the report in that case. The detailed response from Novo Nordisk is given below. The Panel noted Novo Nordisk s submission that there was an error in its response of 20 February to the Panel in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. In response to a request for information about the use of the supplement Novo Nordisk had submitted that in addition to its distribution with The Times on 14 November, eighty copies had been distributed by the clinical research group on World Diabetes Day. No copies had been distributed by the sales and marketing teams and there were no plans for further dissemination. The Panel was now extremely concerned to note that, in addition to the above, the supplement had been put on to the Novo Nordisk UK website on 4 December This had not been mentioned previously by Novo Nordisk. This was an extremely serious matter; it was of paramount importance that submissions to the Authority were checked for complete accuracy as the effectiveness of self regulation relied upon the integrity of the information provided by pharmaceutical companies. Novo Nordisk had not provided complete information to the Panel. The Panel noted that in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 it had considered that Novo Nordisk was responsible for the content of the supplement. Novo Nordisk had full editorial control, owned the copyright and was part of the editorial team. The article at issue, Gut protein drug expected to help improve control recorded an interview with Novo Nordisk s chief science officer. The Panel considered that the inclusion of this article showed that Novo Nordisk had contributed material about liraglutide and so in that regard had been able to influence the content of the supplement in a manner which favoured its interests. In his interview, Novo Nordisk s chief science officer stated, inter alia, that clinical trials of liraglutide had shown that not only did people maintain better control of their blood glucose levels but that it also helped them to lose weight. The Panel considered that patients would read the article and see liraglutide, with its single daily injection and better glucose control as a possible improvement on their current therapy and thus be encouraged to ask their health professional to prescribe it. In this regard the Panel considered it irrelevant that the product was yet unavailable to prescribe. The Panel further considered that the article promoted liraglutide to the public prior to the grant of a marketing authorization. High standards had not been maintained. Breaches of the Code were ruled. Companies should take particular care when producing materials for the public and in this regard the Panel considered that Novo Nordisk had failed to exercise due diligence and thus brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 had been ruled. Turning to the case now before it, Case AUTH/2269/9/09, the Panel noted that liraglutide (Victoza) was granted a marketing authorization at the end of June However as the supplement had been ruled in breach of the Code for encouraging patients to ask their health professional to prescribe liraglutide and for advertising a prescription only medicine to the public, these rulings were still relevant. The Panel noted that following the rulings in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 Novo Nordisk removed the flash banner advertising the supplement from its website on 27 March; however an error resulted in the supplement still being available on the website in September The form of undertaking for Case AUTH/2202/1/09, signed on 9 March 2009, stated that the last time the supplement was distributed was 14 November This was not so. Novo Nordisk had instructed the communications department to remove the supplement from its website on 3 March Novo Nordisk then thought that the supplement had been removed from its website on 27 March. The Panel noted that Novo Nordisk had failed to provide accurate information about the distribution of the supplement in its response to Case Code of Practice Review November
2 AUTH/2202/1/09 and had failed to provide accurate information about the last date of use of the supplement in its undertaking. The fact that Novo Nordisk thought the supplement was removed from the website on 27 March was too long given the undertaking was dated 9 March Such a delay was inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact that the supplement had not been removed successfully and that Novo Nordisk had clearly stated that the supplement was last used on 14 November Novo Nordisk had failed to comply with its undertaking and thus the Panel ruled a breach of the Code. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained and ruled a breach of the Code. The Panel further considered that by not taking sufficient steps to comply with its undertaking, and providing inaccurate information in that undertaking, Novo Nordisk had brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 was ruled. The Panel was extremely concerned about Novo Nordisk s conduct in relation to the Code; the company had twice provided inaccurate information and had not complied with its undertaking given in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. The Panel decided to report the company to the Code of Practice Appeal Board in accordance with Paragraph 8.2 of the Constitution and Procedure. The Appeal Board noted that in its presentation, Novo Nordisk focussed on the three week delay between asking for the supplement to be removed from its website (3 March) and it being removed (27 March) (although it could still be accessed by using the search term liraglutide). In the Appeal Board s view the more serious error was the inaccurate information provided to the Panel about the use of the supplement in its response to the complaint and in its undertaking. Self regulation relied upon full and frank disclosure. With regard to the distribution of the supplement, the Appeal Board noted with concern Novo Nordisk s submission at the consideration of the report, that it did not regard the provision of the supplement via its website as distribution or promotion. Novo Nordisk did not appear to appreciate the utmost seriousness of the situation. The Appeal Board considered that events at Novo Nordisk regarding the provision of inaccurate information, the delayed withdrawal of the supplement and its continued availability on the website despite the efforts to withdraw it demonstrated poor management practices. The company representatives stated that the standard operating procedure (SOP) for withdrawal of material had not been followed. Responsibility for withdrawal of the supplement had been delegated downwards with an apparent abrogation of responsibility. The undertaking in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 had been signed based on inaccurate information provided by a senior manager. In the Appeal Board s view there appeared to be no inherent sense of personal responsibility for compliance with the Code or a full understanding of what that meant. The Appeal Board considered that responsibility for the company culture in that regard resided with the senior management and was apparently lacking. The Appeal Board also expressed concern about the apparent lack of leadership from the medical department. The Appeal Board noted Novo Nordisk s apology at the consideration of the report; poor communication within the company had caused some of the problems. A number of new senior managers had been appointed and a compliance team had been formed. The company had initiated a major review of its compliance systems, procedures and training. It had undertaken extensive remedial action and there appeared to be a commitment to improvement. A number of new SOPs would be rolled out in December 2009 with staff training in January The remaining SOPs would be rolled out in April 2010 with training scheduled for May The Appeal Board decided in accordance with Paragraph 11.3 of the Constitution and Procedure to require an audit of Novo Nordisk s procedures in relation to the Code to be carried out by the Authority in March The Appeal Board would look for reassurance that the audit demonstrated a deeper understanding of the Code and that compliance with it was embedded into the company s culture. The audit required in this case would take place at the same time as the re-audit required in Case AUTH/2234/5/09. On receipt of the audit report the Appeal Board would consider whether further sanctions, including a report to the ABPI Board of Management, were necessary. The Appeal Board further decided that, given its provision of inaccurate information, Novo Nordisk should be publicly reprimanded. Upon receipt of the March 2010 audit report the Appeal Board considered that Novo Nordisk s progress was not sufficiently rapid. It still had serious concerns about the company s approach and attitude to the Code. There were still significant problems with certification. Not all the standard operating procedures (SOPs) had been completed and trained out. This was now due to happen at the May sales conference (other than the SOP for medical and educational goods and services). Overall, the Appeal Board considered that Novo Nordisk still did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The Appeal Board considered requiring Novo Nordisk to submit material for pre-vetting as set out in Paragraph 11.3 of the Constitution and Procedure and/or report the company to the ABPI Board of Management. The Appeal Board decided to require another audit in June/July. On receipt of that audit report the Appeal Board would decide whether further 26 Code of Practice Review November 2010
3 sanctions, such as pre-vetting and/or a report to the ABPI Board, were necessary. Upon receipt of the July 2010 audit report the Appeal Board was concerned that it had taken some time but considered that significant progress had now been made. This must be maintained. The Appeal Board considered carefully all the options available noting that it had already decided that both cases (Cases AUTH/2234/5/09 and AUTH/2269/9/09) should be the subject of a public reprimand. It decided that no further action was necessary. COMPLAINT The Constitution and Procedure was such that when the Director received information from which it appeared that a company might have contravened the Code the company concerned was requested to provide a complete response to the matters of complaint (Paragraph 5.1 of the Constitution and Procedure referred). From information received it appeared that Novo Nordisk had continued to use a supplement to The Times, contrary to its undertaking given in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. The matter was taken up by the Director as it was the responsibility of the Authority itself to ensure compliance with undertakings. Novo Nordisk was accordingly asked to comment in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 25 of the Code. The matter had come to light as part of preparation for the consideration of the report in Case AUTH/2234/5/09. It was raised with the Director by an independent member of the Code of Practice Appeal Board but played no part whatsoever in the Appeal Board s consideration of the report in that case. RESPONSE Novo Nordisk stated that it seemed the supplement was put onto the company website on 4 December 2008 pursuant to the instructions of a senior manager. It seemed that there was an error in Novo Nordisk s letter of 20 February 2009 to the PMCPA about Case AUTH/2202/1/09. This letter stated that the supplement was only distributed in The Times, and that the clinical research group distributed 80 copies of it on 14 November 2008 and at that point there were no plans for further dissemination, when in fact it had also been put onto Novo Nordisk s website. On receipt of the PMCPA ruling on 3 March 2009, the senior manager was instructed to arrange for all copies of the supplement held by Novo Nordisk s external agencies to be destroyed, for the website copy to be deleted and to generally ensure that the supplement was recalled and removed from circulation. Unfortunately due to sickness and holiday absences within the communications department the flash banner advertising the supplement was not removed from the front page of the company s website until 27 March As such, Novo Nordisk assumed that the supplement had been successfully removed from circulation on 27 March The company was therefore surprised and shocked to learn from the PMCPA s letter dated 18 September 2009 that the supplement could still be viewed on Novo Nordisk s website. Immediate action was taken to remedy this situation, and an investigation commenced. It transpired that although the supplement was removed from the website on 27 March 2009 by deleting the front page flash banner and a copy of the pdf version was deleted via a function on the content manager system inactive with attachments, the supplement could still be found in the event of a search. On enquiry with Novo Nordisk s technical IT support function in headquarters, it seemed that the supplement was not permanently removed from the back pages of the website due to it being a pdf document which was manually uploaded to the live server when the page was created. Novo Nordisk deeply regretted that although the supplement was deleted on 27 March 2009, and the links to it were removed, a technical glitch caused the supplement to re-embed itself into the website on a re-boot, despite being previously deleted. Hence the supplement could still be viewed if liraglutide was used as a search term on the website. Novo Nordisk confirmed that this technical abnormality had been investigated and solved and the supplement could no longer be viewed on the UK website. * * * * * Novo Nordisk enquired whether the complaint had been raised by a competitor company. The Director had informed Novo Nordisk that the matter was raised with her by an independent member of the Appeal Board during preparation for the consideration of the report in Case AUTH/2234/5/09. It had played no part whatsoever in the Appeal Board s consideration of that report. Novo Nordisk was invited to submit any further comment. None was received. PANEL RULING The Panel considered that an undertaking was an important document. It included an assurance that all possible steps would be taken to avoid similar breaches of the Code in the future. It was very important for the reputation of the industry that companies complied with undertakings. The Panel noted Novo Nordisk s submission that there was an error in its response of 20 February to the Panel in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. In response to a request for information about the use of the supplement Novo Nordisk had submitted that in addition to its distribution with The Times on 14 Code of Practice Review November
4 November, eighty copies had been distributed by the clinical research group on World Diabetes Day. No copies had been distributed by the sales and marketing teams and there were no plans for further dissemination. The Panel was now extremely concerned to note that, in addition to the above, the supplement was put on to the Novo Nordisk UK website on 4 December 2008; a fact not previously mentioned by Novo Nordisk. The Panel considered that this matter was extremely serious. It was of paramount importance that submissions to the Authority were checked for complete accuracy as the effectiveness of self regulation relied upon the integrity of the information provided by pharmaceutical companies. Novo Nordisk had failed to provide complete information to the Panel. The Panel noted that in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 it had considered that Novo Nordisk was responsible for the content of the supplement. Novo Nordisk had full editorial control, owned the copyright and was part of the editorial team. The article at issue, Gut protein drug expected to help improve control recorded an interview with Novo Nordisk s chief science officer. The Panel considered that the inclusion of this article showed that Novo Nordisk had contributed material about liraglutide and so in that regard had been able to influence the content of the supplement in a manner which favoured its interests. In his interview, Novo Nordisk s chief science officer referred to liraglutide stating that clinical trials of the product had shown that not only did people maintain better control of their blood glucose levels but that it also helped them to lose weight. The article stated that the medicine was currently lodged with the relevant authorities in Europe and the US and, if approved, would be expected to be available from mid In its consideration of Case AUTH/2202/1/09 the Panel did not accept that the supplement in The Times was an acceptable forum to publish the results of clinical trials as submitted by Novo Nordisk. The Panel considered that patients would read the article and see liraglutide, with its single daily injection and better glucose control as a possible improvement on their current therapy and thus be encouraged to ask their health professional to prescribe it. In this regard the Panel considered it irrelevant that the product was yet unavailable to prescribe. A breach of Clause 22.2 was ruled. The Panel further considered that the article promoted liraglutide to the public. A breach of Clause 22.1 was ruled. Further, the product had, in effect, been promoted prior to the grant of a marketing authorization. A breach of Clause 3.1 was ruled. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained. A breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled. The Panel further considered that companies should take particular care when producing materials for the public. The Panel considered that in this regard Novo Nordisk had failed to exercise due diligence and thus brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 had been ruled. Turning to the case now before it, Case AUTH/2269/9/09, the Panel noted that liraglutide (Victoza) was granted a marketing authorization at the end of June However as the supplement had been ruled in breach of the Code for encouraging patients to ask their health professional to prescribe liraglutide and for advertising a prescription only medicine to the public, these rulings were still relevant. The Panel noted that following the rulings in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 Novo Nordisk removed the flash banner advertising the supplement from its website on 27 March however an error resulted in the supplement still being available on the website in September The form of undertaking for Case AUTH/2202/1/09, signed on 9 March 2009, stated that the last time the supplement was distributed was 14 November This was not so. Novo Nordisk had instructed the communications department to remove the supplement from its website on 3 March Novo Nordisk then thought that the supplement had been removed from its website on 27 March. The Panel noted that Novo Nordisk had failed to provide accurate information about the distribution of the supplement to the Panel in its response to Case AUTH/2202/1/09. The company had failed to provide accurate information about the last date of use of the supplement in its undertaking. The fact that Novo Nordisk thought the supplement was removed from the website on 27 March was too long given the undertaking was dated 9 March Such a delay was inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact that the supplement had not been removed successfully and that Novo Nordisk had clearly stated that the supplement was last used on 14 November Novo Nordisk had failed to comply with its undertaking and thus the Panel ruled a breach of Clause 25. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained and ruled a breach of Clause 9.1. The Panel further considered that by not taking sufficient steps to comply with its undertaking, and providing inaccurate information in that undertaking, Novo Nordisk had brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 was ruled. The Panel was extremely concerned about Novo Nordisk s conduct in relation to the Code; the company had twice provided inaccurate information and had not complied with its undertaking given in Case AUTH/2202/1/09. The Panel decided to report the company to the Code of Practice Appeal Board in accordance with Paragraph 8.2 of the Constitution and Procedure. APPEAL BOARD CONSIDERATION The Appeal Board noted that in its presentation, Novo Nordisk focussed on the three week delay 28 Code of Practice Review November 2010
5 between asking for the supplement to be removed from its website (3 March) and it being removed (27 March) (although it could still be accessed by using the search term liraglutide). In the Appeal Board s view the more serious error was the inaccurate information provided to the Panel about the use of the supplement in its response to the complaint and in its undertaking. Self-regulation relied upon full and frank disclosure. With regard to the distribution of the supplement, the Appeal Board noted with concern Novo Nordisk s submission at the consideration of the report, that it did not regard the provision of the supplement via its website as distribution or promotion. In the Appeal Board s view Novo Nordisk appeared not to appreciate the utmost seriousness of the situation. The Appeal Board considered that events at Novo Nordisk regarding the provision of inaccurate information, the delayed withdrawal of the supplement and its continued availability on the website despite the efforts to withdraw it demonstrated poor management practices. The company representatives stated that the standard operating procedure (SOP) for withdrawal of material had not been followed. Responsibility for withdrawal of the supplement had been delegated downwards with an apparent abrogation of responsibility. The undertaking in Case AUTH/2202/1/09 had been signed based on inaccurate information provided by a senior manager. In the Appeal Board s view there appeared to be no inherent sense of personal responsibility for compliance with the Code or a full understanding of what that meant. The Appeal Board considered that responsibility for the company culture in that regard resided with the senior management and was apparently lacking. The Appeal Board also expressed concern about the apparent lack of leadership from the medical department. The Appeal Board noted Novo Nordisk s apology at the consideration of the report; poor communication within the company had caused some of the problems. A number of new senior managers had been appointed and a compliance team had been formed. The company had initiated a major review of its compliance systems, procedures and training. It had undertaken extensive remedial action and there appeared to be a commitment to improvement. A number of new SOPs would be rolled out in December 2009 with staff training in January The remaining SOPs would be rolled out in April 2010 with training scheduled for May The Appeal Board decided in accordance with Paragraph 11.3 of the Constitution and Procedure to require an audit of Novo Nordisk s procedures in relation to the Code to be carried out by the Authority in March The Appeal Board would look for reassurance that the audit demonstrated a deeper understanding of the Code and that compliance with it was embedded into the company s culture. The audit required in this case would take place at the same time as the re audit required in Case AUTH/2234/5/09. On receipt of the audit report the Appeal Board would consider whether further sanctions, including a report to the ABPI Board of Management, were necessary. The Appeal Board further decided that, given its provision of inaccurate information, Novo Nordisk should be publicly reprimanded. FURTHER APPEAL BOARD CONSIDERATION Upon receipt of the March 2010 audit report the Appeal Board considered that Novo Nordisk s progress was not sufficiently rapid. It still had serious concerns about the company s approach and attitude to the Code. There were still significant problems with certification. Not all the standard operating procedures (SOPs) had been completed and trained out. This was now due to happen at the May sales conference (other than the SOP for medical and educational goods and services). Overall, the Appeal Board considered that Novo Nordisk still did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The Appeal Board considered requiring Novo Nordisk to submit material for pre-vetting as set out in Paragraph 11.3 of the Constitution and Procedure and/or report the company to the ABPI Board of Management. The Appeal Board decided to require another audit in June/July. On receipt of that audit report the Appeal Board would decide whether further sanctions, such as pre-vetting and/or a report to the ABPI Board were necessary. Upon receipt of the July 2010 audit report the Appeal Board was concerned that it had taken some time but considered that significant progress had now been made. This must be maintained. The Appeal Board considered carefully all the options available noting that it had already decided that both cases (Cases AUTH/2234/5/09 and AUTH/2269/9/09) should be the subject of a public reprimand. It decided that no further action was necessary. Proceedings commenced 18 September 2009 Undertaking received 5 November 2009 Appeal Board consideration 11 November 2009, 21 April, 8 September 2010 Interim case report published 26 January 2010 Case completed 8 September 2010 Code of Practice Review November
ASTRAZENECA v CHIESI. Promotion of Fostair CASE AUTH/2618/7/13
CASE AUTH/2618/7/13 ASTRAZENECA v CHIESI Promotion of Fostair AstraZeneca complained about a Fostair (formoterol/beclometasone pressurised inhalation solution) leavepiece issued by Chiesi. AstraZeneca
More informationCODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW
NUMBER 86 November 2014 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) in 1993 to operate
More informationCOMPLAINTS IN 2009 DOWN ON 2008 PUBLIC REPRIMAND FOR SOLVAY HEALTHCARE HELP US TO HELP YOU - MAKING A COMPLAINT
NUMBER 67 FEBRUARY 2010 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) in 1993 to operate
More informationCODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW
NUMBER 87 February 2015 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) in 1993 to operate
More informationCONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/2477/2/12 CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI Conduct of representative A consultant physician alleged that at a hospital diabetes meeting a Sanofi representative had been unprofessional in that she
More informationGENERAL PRACTICTIONER AND GP PRESCRIBING LEAD v TAKEDA
CASE AUTH/2367/10/10 GENERAL PRACTICTIONER AND GP PRESCRIBING LEAD v TAKEDA Use of inverted black triangle A general practitioner and GP prescribing lead, complained about a two page advertisement for
More informationASMI COMPLAINTS PANEL FINAL DETERMINATION Meeting held May 11, 2010
ASMI COMPLAINTS PANEL FINAL DETERMINATION Meeting held May 11, 2010 Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Pty Limited ( Wyeth ) v. Bayer Australia Limited ( Bayer ) Citracal promotional claims. 1. Wyeth complains
More informationGuideline on the Regulation of Therapeutic Products in New Zealand
Guideline on the Regulation of Therapeutic Products in New Zealand Part 10: Requirements for information for prescribers and consumers Edition 7.0 January 2016 Section 1: Legislation Section summary This
More informationNOVO NORDISK v LILLY. Promotion of Byetta CASE AUTH/2310/4/10
CASE AUTH/2310/4/10 NOVO NORDISK v LILLY Promotion of Byetta Novo Nordisk complained about Lilly s activities associated with the Diabetes UK Annual Professional Conference which took place 3 5 March 2010.
More informationTERMS AND CONDITIONS NATIONAL GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE (GLP) COMPLIANCE MONITORING AUTHORITY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NATIONAL GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE (GLP) COMPLIANCE MONITORING AUTHORITY FOR OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING ITS GLP CERTIFICATION BY A TEST FACILITY Document No.GLP-101 Version/Issue
More informationTAKEDA v AMDIPHARM MERCURY
CASE AUTH/2834/4/16 TAKEDA v AMDIPHARM MERCURY Promotion of Lutrate Takeda UK complained about a Lutrate (leuprorelin acetate depot injection) promotional email (ref AMCo/LUT/1115/0027) sent by Amdipharm
More informationBRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and ASTRAZENECA v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/2638/9/13 and AUTH/2639/9/13 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and ASTRAZENECA v SANOFI Promotion of Lyxumia Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca jointly complained about cost comparison claims in a Lyxumia
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, R.S.A. 2000, c.h-7;
IN THE MATTER OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, R.S.A. 2000, c.h-7; AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING INTO THE CONDUCT OF ACSW Member, A MEMBER OF THE ALBERTA COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS; AND INTO THE MATTER OF
More informationSHIRE v FERRING. Promotion of Pentasa CASE AUTH/2299/2/10
CASE AUTH/2299/2/10 SHIRE v FERRING Promotion of Pentasa Shire complained about the promotion of Pentasa (mesalazine) by Ferring. The items at issue were a 'power of five' booklet, an A4 sheet and an advertisement
More informationEX-EMPLOYEE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER v BAYER
CASE AUTH/2943/3/17 EX-EMPLOYEE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER v BAYER Conduct of employee and training material An ex-employee of a service provider to Bayer plc complained about the conduct of a named Bayer employee,
More informationBRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND PFIZER v DAIICHI-SANKYO
CASE AUTH/3010/1/18 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND PFIZER v DAIICHI-SANKYO Promotion of Lixiana Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer (The Alliance) made a joint complaint about the promotion of Lixiana
More informationASMI Complaints Panel Final Determination. Meeting held on July 14, 2015
ASMI Complaints Panel Final Determination Meeting held on July 14, 2015 AFT Pharmaceuticals Pty Limited ( AFT ) v. Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited ( RB ) Nuromol advertising Jurisdictional issue
More informationANONYMOUS v PROSTRAKAN
CASE AUTH/2510/6/12 ANONYMOUS v PROSTRAKAN Promotion of Abstral NO BREACH OF THE CODE An anonymous physician alleged that an un-named ProStrakan representative had misled him/her with regard to the titration
More informationRe Scerbo. The Rules of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada 2017 IIROC 57
Re Scerbo IN THE MATTER OF: The Rules of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and Gennaro Scerbo 2017 IIROC 57 Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada Hearing Panel (Manitoba
More informationCHE8000 Major Research Project A. The Complementary Medicines Reforms and Its Impact to the Complementary Medicine Industry and the Consumer
CHE8000 Major Research Project A The Complementary Medicines Reforms and Its Impact to the Complementary Medicine Industry and the Consumer Completed by: Lina Karlina (ID: 2067226) Lina Karlina (2067226)
More informationANONYMOUS ONCOLOGIST v PIERRE FABRE
CASE AUTH/2799/10/15 ANONYMOUS ONCOLOGIST v PIERRE FABRE Promotion of Vinorelbine An anonymous, non-contactable complainant complained about promotional material for Navelbine (vinorelbine), available
More informationVOLUNTARY ADMISSION BY BAYER HEALTHCARE
CASE AUTH/2490/3/12 VOLUNTARY ADMISSION BY BAYER HEALTHCARE Conduct of an employee Bayer Healthcare voluntarily admitted that a healthcare development consultant (HDC) had prepared and used three documents
More informationInduction appeals procedure
Induction appeals procedure Updated March 2013 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Lodging an appeal 4 Notice of Appeal 4 Appropriate body s response 5 Extension of timescales 6 Arrangements for receiving additional
More informationabcdefghijklmnopqrstu
1P P Floor NHS: PCA(D)(2010)6 Primary and Community Care Directorate Primary Care Division abcdefghijklmnopqrstu Dear Colleague GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES 1. Clinical Audit Arrangements 1 August 2010 2. Listing
More informationANONYMOUS HOSPITAL CONSULTANT v GW PHARMACEUTICALS
CASE AUTH/3024/3/18 NO BREACH OF THE CODE ANONYMOUS HOSPITAL CONSULTANT v GW PHARMACEUTICALS Alleged promotion of Epidiolex An anonymous, non-contactable complainant, who described themselves as a consultant
More informationRESOLUTION AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION AGREEMENT Paul Public Charter School OCR Case No. 11 12 1444 Paul PCS (the School) agrees to fully implement this (Agreement) to resolve OCR Complaint No. 11 12 1444. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This
More informationIPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations
IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations February 2013 International Paralympic Committee Adenauerallee 212-214 Tel. +49 228 2097-200 www.paralympic.org 53113 Bonn, Germany Fax +49 228 2097-209
More informationANONYMOUS EMPLOYEES v MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CASE AUTH/1859/6/06 NO BREACH OF THE CODE ANONYMOUS EMPLOYEES v MERCK SHARP & DOHME Medical and educational goods and services An anonymous complainant raised concerns on behalf of a number of Merck Sharp
More informationGLAXOSMITHKLINE v ASTRAZENECA
CASE AUTH/3011/1/18 GLAXOSMITHKLINE v ASTRAZENECA Press release issued by AstraZeneca GlaxoSmithKline complained about an AstraZeneca PLC press release dated 10 November 2017. The press release was entitled
More informationSection 32: BIMM Institute Student Disciplinary Procedure
Section 32: BIMM Institute Student Disciplinary Procedure Introduction Academic Development & Quality Assurance Manual This Student Disciplinary Procedure provides a framework for the regulation of BIMM
More informationCONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/2951/4/17 CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI Promotion of Toujeo A consultant physician complained about promotion of Toujeo (insulin glargine) by Sanofi. The material at issue presented the outcome
More informationDetermination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction:
This case is being considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying the General Medical Council s Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988 Date: 24
More informationRECERTIFICATION PROGRAMME FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF OPTOMETRISTS
RECERTIFICATION PROGRAMME FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF OPTOMETRISTS Background The principal purpose of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (Act) is to protect public health
More information1. Introduction. 2. Role of PSI as Pharmacy Regulator
1. Introduction 1.1. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for inviting the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland here today to assist in the Committee s on-going scrutiny of the Cannabis for Medicinal
More informationIndependent Assurance Statement by Bureau Veritas
Nestlé S.A. Independent Assurance of Compliance with the Nestlé Policy and Instructions for Implementation of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in Pakistan (August 2015)
More informationCOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE B
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE B IN THE MATTER OF: COMPLAINANT: PHYSICIAN: Dr. D.A. (Gus) Grant, Registrar, CPSNS Dr. William Vitale PROCESS: This
More informationNHS: 2005 PCA(D)11 abcdefghijklm
NHS: 2005 PCA(D)11 abcdefghijklm = eé~äíü=aéé~êíãéåí= = aáêéåíçê~íé=çñ=mêáã~êó=`~êé=~åç=`çããìåáíó=`~êé= = mêáã~êó=`~êé=aáîáëáçå= = pí=^åçêéïdë=eçìëé= = oéöéåí=oç~ç= = bafk_rode= = ben=pad= Dear Colleague
More informationASMI COMPLAINTS PANEL FINAL DETERMINATION Meeting held December 13, 2011
ASMI COMPLAINTS PANEL FINAL DETERMINATION Meeting held December 13, 2011 Schering Plough Pty Ltd ( MSD ) v. Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Limited ( JJP ) Zyrtec advertising. 1. MSD complains that an advertisement
More informationHEALTH PROFESSIONAL V ASTRAZENECA
CASE AUTH/3034/4/18 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL V ASTRAZENECA Patient engagement webpages An anonymous complaint was received about a page on AstraZeneca UK Limited s Medicines website. Within the diabetes section
More informationINVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA NOTICE OF HEARING
INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA IN THE MATTER OF: THE BY-LAWS OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA AND JOHN D. W. BUSKELL NOTICE OF HEARING TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Part 10 of By-law
More information1. NHS (GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT NO 136 TO THE STATEMENT OF DENTAL REMUNERATION
MEMORANDUM TO NHS: PCA(D)(2017)6 DENTISTS/DENTAL BODIES CORPORATE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES 1. NHS (GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2017 2. AMENDMENT NO
More informationGood Practice Notes on School Admission Appeals
Good Practice Notes on School Admission Appeals These notes are for supplementary information only and have no statutory basis. Full guidance is available from the Department for Education www.dfe.gov.uk
More informationRECERTIFICATION PROGRAMME FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF OPTOMETRISTS
RECERTIFICATION PROGRAMME FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF OPTOMETRISTS Background The principal purpose of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (Act) is to protect public health
More informationGENERAL PRACTITIONER v BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
CASE AUTH/2404/5/11 GENERAL PRACTITIONER v BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Promotion of Pradaxa A general practitioner complained that a number of articles about Boehringer Ingelheim s product Pradaxa (dabigatran)
More information(Legislative acts) REGULATIONS
31.12.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L 348/1 I (Legislative acts) REGULATIONS REGULATION (EU) No 1235/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards
More informationDecember 4, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION December 4, 2017 Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Development of a List of pre-dietary Supplement
More informationUnited Nations Environment Programme
UNITED NATIONS EP UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/INF/10 United Nations Environment Programme Distr.: General 30 October 2006 Original: English Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
More informationCOMPLAINTS POLICY AND PROCEDURE
COMPLAINTS POLICY AND PROCEDURE Approved: by Governing Body Date of next Review: Application: This policy applies to all concerns and complaints other than those relating to the following: Child Protection
More informationDE-DESIGNATION OF YELLOW FEVER VACCINATION CENTRES
DE-DESIGNATION OF YELLOW FEVER VACCINATION CENTRES January 2014 INDEX Page 1. Introduction 3 2. De-designating a YFVC 4 3. The de-designation process 5-6 4. Repeated breaches of the standards for designation
More informationTeva Pharmaceuticals USA Attention: Scott D. Tomsky Vice President, US Generics Regulatory Affairs 425 Privet Road Horsham, PA 19044
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ANDA 090783 Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD 20993 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Attention: Scott D. Tomsky Vice President, US Generics Regulatory Affairs
More informationDay care and childminding: Guidance to the National Standards
raising standards improving lives Day care and childminding: Guidance to the National Standards Revisions to certain criteria October 2005 Reference no: 070116 Crown copyright 2005 Reference no: 070116
More informationGDC Disclosure and Publication Policy
GDC Disclosure and Publication Policy 1 DISCLOSURE AND PUBLICATION POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE... 4 THE LAW... 4 PUBLICATION OF FITNESS TO PRACTISE INFORMATION... 5 Publication of Conduct and Performance
More informationCare and Social Services Inspectorate Wales
Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales Service Regulation and Inspection Guidance on inspecting welfare provision in boarding schools, residential special schools and accommodation of students under
More informationGuidelines on the Sourcing of Medicinal Products for Sale or Supply by a Retail Pharmacy Business
Guidelines on the Sourcing of Medicinal Products for Sale or Supply by a Retail Pharmacy Business to Facilitate Compliance with Regulations 5(1)(g), 6, 8 and 11 of the Regulation of Retail Pharmacy Businesses
More informationAppendix C Resolution of a Complaint against an Employee
Appendix C Resolution of a Complaint against an Employee Appendix C: Resolution of a Complaint Against an Employee As outlined in the Union College Sexual Misconduct Policy, an individual who wishes to
More informationAbout this guidance. Introduction. When there are no children on roll
The process and guidance for inspecting childminders and childcare settings with no children on roll or no children present at the time of the inspection About this guidance The aim of this guidance is
More informationGE HEALTHCARE v BRACCO
CASE AUTH/2169/9/08 GE HEALTHCARE v BRACCO Promotion of Niopam GE Healthcare complained about the promotion of Niopam by Bracco using the IMPACT study (Barrett et al 2006) and alleged that pertinent information
More informationDarwin Marine Supply Base HSEQ Quality Management Plan
Darwin Marine Supply Base HSEQ Quality Management Plan REVISION SUMMARY Revision Date Comment Authorised 0 29.9.13 Initial input JC 1 12.1.15 General Review JC 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Revision Log Revision No
More informationUSA GYMNASTICS 2017 NATIONAL TEAM FUNDING AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT
USA GYMNASTICS 2017 NATIONAL TEAM FUNDING AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between USA GYMNASTICS (USA Gym), a not-for-profit corporation designated by the United States Olympic Committee
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO -AND-
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO -AND- DR. EMAD ESKANDER, DR. KAR MAN CHEUNG, DR. SUZAN SARKIES, DR. VIVIAN LI NOTICE
More informationCOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA SUMMARY OF DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE D. Dr. Jalal Hosein
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NOVA SCOTIA SUMMARY OF DECISION OF INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE D Dr. Jalal Hosein Investigation Committee D of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia (the
More informationThe Panel was appointed on 9 June 2006, with papers being delivered to the Panelist the following day.
第 1 頁, 共 5 頁 Decision Submission Decision ID Case ID Disputed Domain Name Case Administrator Submitted By Participated Panelist DE-0600079 HK-0600084 www.asiabase.com Dennis CAI Peter Bullock Peter Bullock
More informationSOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS. Policy Manual
SUBJECT: Drug Free Environment NUMBER: 4:27 SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS Policy Manual Drug Free Workplace Policy The South Dakota Board of Regents is committed to providing a drug free workplace. Additional
More informationPersonal information, for purposes of this Policy, includes any information which relates to an identified or an identifiable person.
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Purpose This Data Protection Binding Corporate Rules Policy ( Policy ) establishes the approach of Fluor to compliance with European data protection law and specifically
More informationFinancial Administration and Control of Research and Special Funds
1 2 3 Financial Administration and Control of Research and Special Funds 4 Financial Administration and Control of Research and Special Funds Presenter Name Colin Nicolson Presenter Title Assistant Manager
More informationQUALITY REVIEW PROGRAM REVIEW OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
QUALITY REVIEW PROGRAM REVIEW OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2 Quality Review Program Review of forensic accounting engagement questionnaire Review Code(s) Reviewer Review Date INTRODUCTION
More informationNOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS
CASE AUTH/2141/7/08 NOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS Promotion of Lantus Novo Nordisk complained about the promotion of Lantus (insulin glargine) by Sanofi-Aventis. The materials at issue were: four leavepieces
More informationSeal of Approval Guidelines. The Approval Program
Seal of Approval Guidelines The Approval Program 1. Program Objectives 1.1 To recognise over the counter products with an Oral Health Benefit where products can be established to be safe, efficient and
More informationMERCK SHARP & DOHME v NOVO NORDISK
CASE AUTH/2569/12/12 MERCK SHARP & DOHME v NOVO NORDISK Promotion of Victoza Merck Sharp & Dohme complained about a Victoza (liraglutide) detail aid produced by Novo Nordisk. The detail aid was headed
More informationCENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH. APPLICATION NUMBER: Orig1s000 APPROVAL LETTER
CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 202107Orig1s000 APPROVAL LETTER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring MD 20993 NDA 202107 NDA APPROVAL
More informationClassification Rules and Regulations
World Para Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations March 2017 Official Partners of World Para Athletics www.worldparaathletics.org @ParaAthletics ParalympicSport.TV /ParaAthletics Organisation Part
More informationNational curriculum tests maladministration procedures. March 2007 QCA/07/3097
National curriculum tests maladministration procedures March 2007 QCA/07/3097 Contents 1. Purpose of document... 3 2. Scope... 4 3. General principles of national curriculum tests maladministration investigations...
More informationThe extended timeframe associated with being listed on the CCSL;
13 October 2017 The Hon. Angus Taylor, MP Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Email: Angus.Taylor.MP@aph.gov.au Dear Assistant Minister Certified
More informationBAYER v BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
CASE AUTH/2231/5/09 BAYER v BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Promotion of Pradaxa Bayer complained about the promotion of Pradaxa (dabigatran) by Boehringer Ingelheim. The items at issue were a medical information
More informationThe Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by text.
COMPLAINT ADJUDICATION PAUL TROTMAN and CAERPHILLY OBSERVER Clause 1. Accuracy (i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines
More informationInternational Paralympic Committee Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations. January 2016
I P C AT H L E T I C S International Paralympic Committee Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations January 2016 Official IPC Athletics Partner www.paralympic.org/athletics www.ipc-athletics.org @IPCAthletics
More information1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUMMARY OF PATIENT COMMENTS AND OTHER FEEDBACK RECIEVED REGARDING INITIAL PREFERRED OPTIONS FOR FUTURE PROVISION OF ROUTINE NHS GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES BY THE SALARIED DENTAL SERVICE 1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
More informationHearing aid dispenser approval process review Introduction Hearing aid dispenser data transfer... 6
Hearing aid dispenser approval process review 2010 11 Content 1.0 Introduction... 4 1.1 About this document... 4 1.2 Overview of the approval process... 4 2.0 Hearing aid dispenser data transfer... 6 2.1
More informationWorking in Partnership to meet the Childcare Need A Toolkit to support schools and providers / childminders in the provision of out of school care
ACTION FOR CHILDREN Working in Partnership to meet the Childcare Need A Toolkit to support schools and providers / childminders in the provision of out of school care This toolkit is designed as a step
More informationMHRA Pharmacovigilance Inspections: Prepare and Manage for Success
MHRA Pharmacovigilance Inspections: Prepare and Manage for Success Created and Presented by Miranda Dollen Vice President, Pharmacovigilance & EEA QPPV Mapi 2016, All Rights Reserved 2 Prepare and Manage
More informationHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY Adopted May 6, 2010 Revised June 2, 2016 The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Airport Board
More informationResearch Ethics for Human Participants Process
Research Ethics for Human Participants Process No.: 6500 PR1 Policy Reference: 6500 Category: Research and International Department Responsible: Vice President of Education Current Approved Date: 2011
More informationLEAF Marque Assurance Programme
Invisible ISEAL Code It is important that the integrity of the LEAF Marque Standard is upheld therefore the LEAF Marque Standards System has an Assurance Programme to ensure this. This document outlines
More informationPartnership Contribution Standard Operating Procedures June 2015
Partnership Contribution Standard Operating Procedures June 2015 This document replaces the version dated May 2013 In May 2011, the Sixty- fourth World Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
More informationSafeguarding Business Plan
Safeguarding Business Plan 2015-2018 Contents 1. Introduction 2. The Care Act 3. Organisational Development 4. Vision, Values and Strategic Objectives 5. Financial Plan 6. Appendix A Action Plan 7. Appendix
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS Indexed as: Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers v Renee Parsons, 2018 ONCSWSSW 15 Decision
More informationReport. Uganda Pharmaceutical Sector Scan JUNE 2010
Report On the Uganda Pharmaceutical Sector Scan Part of Component 1 of MeTA Baseline Assessments JUNE 2010 Drafted by consultants: 1. Samuel Balyejjusa, B.Pharm., MPH 2. Paschal Mujasi, B.Pharm., MBA 3.
More informationASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CASE AUTH/1986/4/07 ASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE Symbicort and Seretide cost comparisons AstraZeneca complained about cost comparisons made by GlaxoSmithKline between AstraZeneca s Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol)
More informationNOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS
CASE AUTH/2152/8/08 NOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS Promotion of Lantus Novo Nordisk complained about a mailer and two leavepieces produced by Sanofi-Aventis that promoted Lantus (insulin glargine). Novo
More informationQUESTIONS: GENERAL. 2. Would it then be fair to say that TCF carries a lot of (confusing) duplication?
QUESTIONS: GENERAL 1. As a registered Financial Service provider one could hardly be compliant or fit and proper and not treat customers fairly particularly as regards ADVICE (as defined in FAIS COC Point
More informationRecall Guidelines. for Chinese Medicine Products
Recall Guidelines for Chinese Medicine Products April 2018 Recall Guidelines for Chinese Medicine Products Chinese Medicines Board Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong Compiled in September 2005 1 st
More informationINTERNSHIP DUE PROCESS GUIDELINES
INTERNSHIP DUE PROCESS GUIDELINES DEFINITION OF PROBLEM For purposes of this document Intern problem is defined broadly as an interference in professional functioning which is reflected in one or more
More informationSchools Hearings & Appeals Procedure
Schools Hearings & Appeals Procedure Status: Updated October 2016. The following procedures will apply when cases are referred to Hearings and Appeals; Contents: Page Hearings 2 Appeals 2 The role of HR
More informationFIH CODE OF CONDUCT, FIH ANTI-DOPING RULES, FIH IMAGE RIGHTS POLICY AND FIH ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATIONS
Notes: FIH CODE OF CONDUCT, FIH ANTI-DOPING RULES, FIH IMAGE RIGHTS POLICY AND FIH ANTI-CORRUPTION REGULATIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT 1. No Participant may participate in an FIH world level event
More informationFollow-up to the Audit of the Occupational Health and Safety Program. Audit and Evaluation Branch
Follow-up to the Audit of the Occupational Health and Safety Program Audit and Evaluation Branch Report Clearance Steps Follow-up process implemented June 2002 Report completed August 2002 Factual review
More informationRE: Permits under the Arizona Pharmacy Act should not be required for dietary supplements
Board Members Arizona State Board of Pharmacy 1616 W. Adams St., Suite 120 Phoenix, AZ 85007 c/o Kam Gandhi, PharmD Executive Director Arizona State Board of Pharmacy Via email: kgandhi@azpharmacy.gov
More informationEnhanced CPD guidance for providers
Enhanced CPD guidance for providers RECORD PLAN REFLECT DO PROFESS ONALS 2 1 Summary of the scheme The enhanced CPD scheme will commence in January 2018 for dentists and August 2018 for dental care professionals.
More informationClassification Rules and Regulations
World Para Swimming Classification Rules and Regulations January 2018 2018 International Paralympic Committee ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Official Approved Supplier of World Para Swimming Equipment www.worldparaswimming.org
More informationIPC Athletics. Classification Rules and Regulations
I P C AT H L E T I C S IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations September 2011 IPC ATHLETICS CLASSIFICATION RULES AND REGULATIONS The IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regulations are integral
More information